Q1A8: Deductive logic seems to the "argument" at issue here. Interestingly he makes a similar distinction in types of authority as we American lawyers do when we distinguish between a binding authority and a persuasive one. Scripture is binding, but the words of Aristotle, Cicero, etc. function like, say an Alabama decision in an Oklahoma court.
Q1A9: Well that's a relief. As I think almost totally in metaphor and analogy, it is good to have that method of thought approved for the sacred science. Nevertheless, the comments about withholding some truths from the unworthy is something to ponder. At first that appears to have the odor of Gnosticism about it, but I come to St. Thomas with a hermeneutic of trust (not least because of the very scriptures he cites), so I will try to understand what he is saying here.
Q1A10: This reminds me that I want to read De Lubac's Medieval Exigesis - but one massive theological undertaking at a time, n'est pas? What most stands out to me in this article is St. Thomas' use of "literal". His use is quite different from our colloquial use, let alone Sean Hannity's.
Vale,
JR
"hermeneutic of trust", I like that term.
ReplyDeleteI didn't have the same difficulty with the comment about the unworthy; it may be because I am currently reading the book of Proverbs, which is constantly warning against the danger of fools. I think what is meant by "the unworthy" is those whose interests in the Church are not sincere, such as those using Catholicism for their own benefit (i.e. Rex Mottram).
Great Waugh reference!
ReplyDelete